Peter Franklin: Consensus confounded

Far from merging in the middle, British politics stands on the brink of a historic divide.

It is said that Gordon Brown is always on the lookout for a political dividing line – that is, something that might put him on the winning side of an argument, with David Cameron on the other. This might take the form of an issue, such as the extended detention without trial of terrorist suspects; alternatively, there may be no policy content at all – merely a stunt of some sort, such as Gordon’s GOAT (government of all talents).

If you ask me, I’d say that the Prime Minister is no more convinced of Britain’s need for 56 day detention than he is of the Labour Party’s need for Quentin Davies – it’s just that he calculated that the fissures thus created would leave his opponents on the shakiest ground. Luckily for us, he’s the one that got rumbled, his high minded proclamations of a new kind of politics exposed as petty gamesmanship. And yet there is something to be said for his approach. What he almost understands, and various Tory strategists have utterly failed to grasp, is that success in politics is not about you moving to the middle ground – it’s about defining the dividing lines that put the middle ground where you want it to be.

For instance, for most of the 20th century the great divide in British politics was over state control of the economy. On one side of the line was the Left, in favour of state control; on the other side was the Right, in favour of free enterprise. Under Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative were able to highlight the growing economic opportunities offered by the market, making it increasingly clear as to which was the winning side.

This is something that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair understood when they started New Labour. However, they did a lot more than simply cross the old divide. They surveyed the new political territory they found themselves in and drew a new dividing line right across it. This was the divide between private gain and the common good, with themselves on the side of the latter. Where once there had only been Left and Right, there was now a Third Way – in favour of free enterprise and the common good.

There was nothing especially original about this formula, but it was
Blair and Brown who succeeded in defining it clearly, marking out a
political space much larger than the alternatives to the Left of the
first divide or to the Right of the second. Meanwhile, the Conservative
Party was torn between the die-hards who were determined to stand their
ground, and modernisers intent on crossing the second divide to join
New Labour on the middle ground.

The die-hards were always doomed to failure. A growing economy means
that people are increasingly intolerant of public squalor in the midst
of private affluence, and more able to afford a Government intent on
progress. In the absence of a sustained economic reverse, I doubt that
any party that concerns itself with private gain alone can ever win
another election.

But that doesn’t mean the modernisers have got it right either. There’s
no use putting yourself on the middle ground of British politics unless
you can make it your own. Merely promising to make a better fist of
your opponent’s policies will not win you votes – not unless they mess
up big time.

So, how can the Conservative Party carve out a winning position? Well,
you guessed it, we need to draw our own political dividing line – with
ourselves on the right side of the argument and New Labour very much in
the wrong. By this I don’t mean the tawdry wedge-issue politics that
Messrs Brown and Balls find so diverting, I mean a fault line on the
scale of the two great divides I’ve described already.

Yes, we must remain on the side of free enterprise and the common good,
but within that territory we need a third great divide. In this
respect, and with a more than a little help from Iain Duncan Smith,
David Cameron is beginning to make his mark. The line which he
sketching out across the centre ground is between New Labour’s vision
of the welfare state, the Conservative vision of a welfare society.

Over the last ten years New Labour has had the time to pursue its
vision – and the money too, more than has ever been available to a
British Government. Billions of pounds have been spent on getting
people back into work; but worklessness remains ingrained and migrant
labour is required to fill most new jobs. Billions of pounds have been
spent on tackling educational failure; but independent studies show
that little has been achieved and that mass illiteracy continues to
entrench inequality. Billions of pounds have been spent on early years
intervention projects like Sure Start; but the Government’s own
research shows that the children of the poor have not been helped,
while their families and communities disintegrate.

And yet up and down the country, individuals and organisations are
demonstrating that you can get the long-term unemployed into work; that
you can teach just about anyone to read; that you can support and
strengthen families to give every child the best possible start in
life. Even more importantly, the most enterprising of these endeavours
are demonstrating that these patterns of success can be replicated on a
transformational scale – if, that is, they are entrusted with the
freedom and resources to do so.
Sadly, it is not in Labour’s nature to relinquish control to a welfare
society; the way is therefore open to the Conservative Party – as
champions of free enterprise, the common good and the welfare society.

The question that remains is whether David Cameron will take this way
forward, or draw back – leaving a hazy and indistinct dividing line
between himself and Gordon Brown. It is still too early to tell, but I
was greatly encouraged by his Manchester speech earlier this month. His
idea that certain public services and assets could be mutualised was
not only exciting in itself, but also as a sign of his ambition for the
kind of reform that could make anything possible – including a
realignment of British politics.

Comments

This is very good - and what is more it also chimes in with the "freedom" agenda which is being pursued more generally i.e. it goes to the 58 days debate as well. Our security is much better protected in our own hands with assistance from the police and the security services than wholly in the hands of an authoritarian State claiming to protect the common good. After all, yesterday's Treasury announcement shows how secure we are

As William Hague pointed out at conference a few years ago Tony Blair's third-way philosophy was stolen from Oswald Mosley. So there was nothing particularly new about that idea. The thing today that clearly divides the party is the issue of statism. Labour are welded to the concept of a huge monolithic state directing every aspect of social policy. David Cameron's entire approach is different, in fact minimalist. David's belief that the small proactive groups free of state control can do more good in society is bourne out by the facts. Rather like the military concept of blitzkreig, smaller, more mobile units are far more effective than one huge clunking offensive. The term less-is-more certainly applies to the modern Conservative strategy. The statist philosophy of Labour belongs to the last century. It has been tried, tested and has failed.

"Under Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative were able to highlight the growing economic opportunities offered by the market, making it increasingly clear as to which was the winning side."

Really? We are on the brink of nationalising a bank (which used to be much better-run as a mutual building society closely tied to a locality) in order to counteract the ruinous consequences of the anti-conservative "free" market for the thoroughly conservative Common Good.

"The line which he sketching out across the centre ground is between New Labour’s vision of the welfare state, the Conservative vision of a welfare society."

It is wishful thinking to think that the welfare state can just wither away. Ideally the Conservatives would dratically reduce the number those who are entitled to incapacity benefit. But there are too many voters in key seats who are dependent on it. Without real reform of the welfare state, talk of a welfare society is mere rhetoric.

Andrew Lansley's NHS policies show that the Conservative Party is courting, rather than taking on, the statist interest groups and political classes.

The Conservatives' policies are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. There is no clear vision or theme, a damning indictment of Oliver Letwin's performance as the part-time policy co-ordinator. It is time to give his job to Michael Gove whose schools policies are a radical alternative to the statism of Labour and Lansley.

One of the main reasons statism doesn't work is the inevitable tiers of bureaucracy that accompany it. Labour seem to believe this leads to some kind of accountability but all it does is clog the system. One department becomes three, three becomes six and they end up bickering with each other and not getting anything done. The best way to run anything is with a chain of command. A pyramid of responsibility. Our public services need to be purged of all superfluous waste. That will mean a loss of jobs but it will have to be done. An audit should be carried out and every public service worker should be made to explain what exactly they do and how it relates to their work. Too many people are riding the public service gravy-train, contributing nothing of value and are a drain on efficiency.

Tired and emotional indeed! The NHS literally kills thousands of patients every year by inflecting them with MRSA and other superbugs. It is a far bigger threat to life than Islamic terrorism. NHS and health reform must be a top priority for the next Conservative government.

Get real, yes, my son contracted impetigo after a visit to a NHS hospital. I believe hospitals should take the radical step of banning all non-staff visitors. Perhaps visitors could still speak to loved ones by some sort of video or audio link. I know that hospital visits play a vital psychological role in recovery, however it can't help the situation when so many visitors are bringing all manner of infection in and out of hospital.